The Turin Shroud's enduring mystery

[hypotenuse]

All the peer reviewed literature in the world won't change the fact that a 3 dimensional object(a human face) imposed onto a 2 dimensional object(shroud) will be skewed and distorted.

If you don't want to take my word for it, then drape a sheet over your face and have someone paint the outside of it.  You'll see that it's physically impossible to get a normal looking face using that method.  I won't say it's impossible to jimmy-rig something to look like that, but I will say it's impossible to get that look just by leaving a cloth drapped over someones body with no other intervention.

I see you still haven't read any of the information I provided. And you continue to insist that your opinion overrides people who have studied and analyzed the Shroud in detail using accepted scientific method. Where is your evidence? Where are the papers or studies from knowledgeable scholars to support what you have to say? Or is it your intend to just be the dissident chorus? I think there's a name for that ...

[Wickian]

You don't need papers or studies of "knowledgeable scholars" to have common sense. You can do a simple experiment with a doll head and a paper towel if you want. The only way a normal looking face can be imprinted onto a flat surface it was wrapped in would be to draw it or use a semi-flat, shallow mold of a man's face with indented regions to simulate depth.

There is no issue of my opinion being worth more than your studies, the above statement is an observed fact.

I don't know about the origins of the shroud or how old it is, but based on facts of physics I can assume very safely that no human was used to create it. The head at least anyway.

[Paranormalcy]

I watched the History Channel's "The face of Jesus" or whatever their Easter special was this month I think, and they were examining the different techniques that went into this particular attempt they were covering, manual and artistic, computer extrapolation, etc. The guy even went on a bit about how "my face of Jesus doesn't look like the face of Jesus you see on the shroud, because what you see there was elongated over his chin - our computer model extrapolated his actual dimensions due to that..." so this is definitely an issue that at least this particular special delved into some.

[hypotenuse]

You don't need papers or studies of "knowledgeable scholars" to have common sense.  You can do a simple experiment with a doll head and a paper towel if you want.  The only way a normal looking face can be imprinted onto a flat surface it was wrapped in would be to draw it or use a semi-flat, shallow mold of a man's face with indented regions to simulate depth.

There is no issue of my opinion being worth more than your studies, the above statement is an observed fact.

I don't know about the origins of the shroud or how old it is, but based on facts of physics I can assume very safely that no human was used to create it.  The head at least anyway.

If it is that easy, maybe you could provide an example. Or one scholarly discussion of your "theory?" No? That's what I thought.

And I suppose your observed example holds more sway than the observations of people who have actually viewed the Shroud? Or did you arrive at your opinion after careful direct observation of the Shroud?

It's obvious you still haven't looked at any of the detailed analysis I provided regarding this question.

[Eldorado]

"All empirical evidence and logical reasoning concerning the Shroud of Turin will lead any objective, rational person to the firm conclusion that the Shroud is an artifact created by an artist in the fourteenth-century."

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/schafersman.html

http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2251735/shroud_of_turin_fake_and_scientist.html?cat=9

(Took me 2 shakes of a lambs tail to google scientists who believe it's a fraud)

[hypotenuse]

It was Nature, another prestigious peer-reviewed journal, that in 1989, reported that carbon 14 dating ‘proved’ the shroud was a hoax. Rogers found no fault with the article in Nature. Nor did he find fault with the quality of the carbon 14 dating. He defended it. What Rogers found was that the carbon 14 sample was taken from a mended area of the cloth that contained significant amounts of newer material. This was not the fault of the radiocarbon laboratories. But it did show that the dating was invalid.

Immediately after the publication of Rogers’ paper, Nature published a commentary by scientist-journalist Philip Ball. “Attempts to date the Turin Shroud are a great game,” he wrote, “but don't imagine that they will convince anyone . . . The scientific study of the Turin shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than settle it.” Later in his commentary Ball added, “And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artefact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made.” The Shroud of Turin for Journalists

And it only takes another couple shakes to produce sites with overwhelming evidence from a multitude of scientists who believe the Shroud is an authentic first century burial cloth.

http://www.shroud.com/

http://www.shroudstory.com/

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/

http://www.shroudoft...ournalists.com/

And many of these authorities have been direct observers and researchers of the Shroud. The first site listed is maintained by one of the original STURP members - Barrie M. Schwortz was one of the photographers on the team which examined the Shroud in 1978. His site contains a library of of peer reviewed journal articles, research papers, etc.

Edited April 17, 2010 by hypotenuse

[hypotenuse]

"All empirical evidence and logical reasoning concerning the Shroud of Turin will lead any objective, rational person to the firm conclusion that the Shroud is an artifact created by an artist in the fourteenth-century."

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/schafersman.html

http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2251735/shroud_of_turin_fake_and_scientist.html?cat=9

(Took me 2 shakes of a lambs tail to google scientists who believe it's a fraud)

Your first two sources are based mainly on the work of Walter McCrone and Joe Nickell. Here is what the STURP team thought of McCrone's research:

In 1978, Walter McCrone claimed that he found some chemicals that are consistent with tempura paint. However, he is the only scientist, among many who have examined actual fibers from the Shroud, to make this claim. Every other scientist who who has actually examined the Shroud of Turin (or some of the collected fibers and particles) disputes his findings. See Ray Rogers' explanation below. Also see: Walter McCrone and the Shroud of Turin and The d'Arcis Memorandum

Now, in 2004, we know that the images are the result of a complex carbon bond within a very thin layer of starch and saccharides that coat the outermost fibers of the cloth. The Shroud, under the supervision of several scientists, was observed with visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. Fiber observations were made by pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, lasermicroprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments or painting media was found.  http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-turin-painting.htm  

And regarding Joe Nickell, this is what Ray Rogers, one of the most respected people to ever publish regarding the Shroud, had to say:

Facts are facts. Other than perhaps some trace contaminates, there is no paint on the Shroud; at least nothing that would form a visible image.

In a letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer, regarding an article by Joe Nickell, chemist Ray Rogers wrote the following. This letter is very telling on this subject:

Dear Editor:

Joe Nickell has attacked my scientific competence and honesty in his latest publication on the Shroud of Turin. Everything I have done investigating the shroud had the goal of testing some hypothesis [schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 3 (1982); Rogers R. N., Arnoldi A., "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain the image formation," in Melanoidins vol. 4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp. 106-113].

My latest paper [Rogers, R. N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta 425/1-2, 189-194 (2005)] is no exception. I accepted the radiocarbon results, and I believed that the "invisible reweave" claim was highly improbable. I used my samples to test it. One of the greatest embarrassments a scientist can face is to have to agree with the lunatic fringe. So, Joe, should I suppress the information, as Walter McCrone did the results from Mark Anderson, his own MOLE expert?

Incidentally, I knew Walter since the 1950s and had compared explosives data with him. I was the one who "commissioned" him to look at the samples that I took in Turin, when nobody else would trust him. I designed the sampling system and box, and I was the person who signed the paper work in Turin so that I could hand-carry the samples back to the US. The officials in Turin and King Umberto would not allow Walter to touch the relic. Walter lied to me about how he would handle the samples, and he early ruined them for additional chemical tests. Incidentally, has anyone seen direct evidence that Walter found Madder on the cloth? I can refute almost every claim he made, and I debated the subject with his people at a Gordon Conference. I can present my evidence as photomicrographs of classical tests, spectra, and mass spectra.

Now Joe thinks I am a "Shroud of Turin devotee," a "pro-authenticity researcher," and incompetent at microanalysis. If he ever read any of my professional publications, he would know that I have international recognition as an expert on chemical kinetics. I have a medal for Exceptional Civilian Service from the US Air Force, and I have developed many microanalytical methods. I was elected to be a Fellow of a national laboratory. A cloud still hangs over Walter with regard to the Vinland map. Joe does not take his job as "Research Director" very seriously. If he thinks I am a "true believer," I will put him solidly on the "far-right" lunatic fringe.

Joe did not understand the method or importance of the results of the pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands the fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry or fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics. If he wants to argue my results, I suggest that we stick to observations, natural laws, and facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but I believe all skeptics should be held to the same ethical and scientific standards we require of others."

Sincerely,

Raymond N. Rogers

Fellow (Retired)

University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos, NM, USA

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/resources/McCrone002.htm  

Regarding your third link, it discusses the work of Luigi Garlaschelli. Here is the counter argument to his supposed duplication of the Shroud.

Thibault Heimburger, MD

CONCLUSION:

L.G. concluded: “We have also shown that pigments containing traces of acidic compounds can be

artificially aged after the rubbing step (…) in such a way that, when the pigment is washed away, an image

is obtained having the expected characteristics as the Shroud of Turin. In particular the image is pseudonegative,

is fuzzy with half-tones, resides on the top-most fibers of the cloth, has some 3D embedded

properties and does not fluoresce”.

I think to the contrary that the image has none of these characteristics (except negativity and nonfluorescence).

L.G. used a sophisticated method and a new interesting hypothesis, and he got the best

Shroud-like image today. It is interesting to notice that even so, the properties of his image remain in fact

very far from the fundamental properties of the Shroud image.

For the moment, the Shroud image remains unfakable.  PDF Document  

[Eldorado]

If there was indeed, indisputable "overwhelming evidence from a multitude of scientists", then this would not still be seriously debated and the Turin Shroud would not still be classed by most people as an Unexplained Mystery.

It's my own opinion that, each time the RC Church gets a result it does not like it flexes it's muscles and conscripts RC scientists to trash those results. Remember, in the Pope's own words, the reputation of the Church is even more important than the welfare of children.

[hypotenuse]

If there was indeed, indisputable "overwhelming evidence from a multitude of scientists", then this would not still be seriously debated and the Turin Shroud would not still be classed by most people as an Unexplained Mystery.

It's my own opinion that, each time the RC Church gets a result it does not like it flexes it's muscles and conscripts RC scientists to trash those results.  Remember, in the Pope's own words, the reputation of the Church is even more important than the welfare of children.

No argument here. Without a doubt the Shroud of Turin is still debated as having unexplained properties and questionable provenance. What isn't debated by those who have conducted serious inquiry and research are the known facts. Those are only debated by the willfully ignorant lay public, who almost always base their arguments on sensationalist journalism and denier misinformation - often long disproved -  instead of the peer reviewed, journal published papers and articles of scientists and researchers qualified to render objective, educated, clearly defined empirical evidence. 

[Shaftsbury]

You haven't rained on my parade. I asked that if someone has a question that it be brought forth and I'll do my best to provide the answer.

You might be interested in reading the paper presented by Aldo Guerreschi at the May 2000 Shroud Imaging Conference in San Felice Circeo, Italy.  PDF Document

You might also be interested in reading the paper by Mario Latendresse, Ph.D. which discusses the positioning of the body during image formation.  PDF Document

Of particular interest are the conclusions of a forensic scientist, Dr. Robert Bucklin, M.D., J.D., Las Vegas, Nevada who performed an "autopsy" of the body which was enshrouded by the Turin cloth.  

An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud

Does the Shroud Contain Three Dimensional Information?  PDF Document

1) The paper presented by Aldo Guerreschi - As far as I am able to determine, discusses methods of photographing the shroud to get the best image detail, and the special properties of the image, not how the image was formed.

2) The paper by Mario Latendresse - Discusses the positioning of the body in relation to the (alleged) bloodstains again not how the image was formed; he states: "There is currently no well established physical and/or

chemical explanation for the formation mechanism of the images on the Shroud of Turin, despite many hypotheses. It is outside the scope of this paper to study them;".

3) The conclusions of a forensic scientist - Focuses on the (alleged) injuries observed in the image, not how the image was formed.

In conclusion, as far as I can tell all 3 of your sources focus on the properties of the image itself and not on how it was formed or whether or not the image is consistent with wrapping a body in a burial cloth.

[hypotenuse]

 

...

In conclusion, as far as I can tell all 3 of your sources focus on the properties of the image itself and not on how it was formed or whether or not the image is consistent with wrapping a body in a burial cloth.

If you review my posts you'll notice I haven't offered any explanation about the process by which the image was actually formed, i.e. the chemical or physical properties necessary to generate the image.

No one knows yet how the image was actually formed. Though many have offered up an explanation, so far all have been flawed in one respect or another.

But if you think you can explain how the image was formed, I say go for it. Maybe you'll find someone willing to listen. I'll stick with the facts as presented by knowledgeable scientists, researchers and scholars.

[Shaftsbury]

 

If you review my posts you'll notice I haven't offered any explanation about the process by which the image was actually formed, i.e. the chemical or physical properties necessary to generate the image.

No one knows yet how the image was actually formed. Though many have offered up an explanation, so far all have been flawed in one respect or another.

But if you think you can explain how the image was formed, I say go for it. Maybe you'll find someone willing to listen. I'll stick with the facts as presented by knowledgeable scientists, researchers and scholars.

No I'm quite happy with the facts:

Fact #1 - There is no evidence to show that this is the burial shroud of Christ.

Fact #2 - There is no evidence to show that the image on the shroud was created by supernatural events.

Fact #3 - The age and origin of the shroud are in dispute.

Fact #4 - How the image appeared on the cloth is in dispute.

What possible conclusions can we make based on those facts?

[hypotenuse]

No I'm quite happy with the facts:

Fact #1 - There is no evidence to show that this is the burial shroud of Christ.

Fact #2 - There is no evidence to show that the image on the shroud was created by supernatural events.

Fact #3 - The age and origin of the shroud are in dispute.

Fact #4 - How the image appeared on the cloth is in dispute.

What possible conclusions can we make based on those facts?

None if you choose to narrow your perspective to only those things you mention. So why are you even discussing this topic? What possible motive could you have? 

[Shaftsbury]

None if you choose to narrow your perspective to only those things you mention. So why are you even discussing this topic? What possible motive could you have? 

Motive?

These are the science forums, my motive is to uncover the truth concerning the subject.

We do that by looking at the available evidence, making observations based on what the evidence seems to suggest, and then discussing those observations to get feedback about our conclusions.

Narrow perspective?

I have looked at the origin and age of the shroud, possible methods of it's creation, and it's historical relationship and implications, how could you consider that a narrow perspective?

[hypotenuse]

 

Motive?

These are the science forums, my motive is to uncover the truth concerning the subject.

We do that by looking at the available evidence, making observations based on what the evidence seems to suggest, and then discussing those observations to get feedback about our conclusions.

Narrow perspective?

I have looked at the origin and age of the shroud, possible methods of it's creation, and it's historical relationship and implications, how could you consider that a narrow perspective?

No I'm quite happy with the facts:

Fact #1 - There is no evidence to show that this is the burial shroud of Christ.

There is actually quite a bit of corroborative evidence that indicates the Shroud could possibly have been the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. >>>

The anomaly of the Shroud

Fact #2 - There is no evidence to show that the image on the shroud was created by supernatural events.

Granted - I agree there is currently no truly credible evidence of a supernatural event. NOTE: I have not argued there is.

Fact #3 - The age and origin of the shroud are in dispute.

Granted, but that isn't to say it's history cannot be credibly traced far further back than the first confirmed appearance in 1353 in Lirey, France. >>>

The Historical Trail

Fact #4 - How the image appeared on the cloth is in dispute.

Yes, but there are several theories which have been or are currently being explored. Here are two of those theories. I'm sure there are others. >>>

Vapor Mediate Image

Source of Energy

NOTE If only one fact detected on the Shroud is not in agreement with a particular hypothesis, that hypothesis must be discharged. Currently there is no known mechanism that duplicates all the the microscopic and macroscopic characteristics evidenced in the Shroud of Turin. The image formation mechanism is still unknown. That does not however preclude a viable image formation cause will not be found in the future.

What possible conclusions can we make based on those facts?

I don't know what conclusion you have drawn, though you seem to indicate you have concluded the Shroud is a fake. Is that true?

[Shaftsbury]

 

There is actually quite a bit of corroborative evidence that indicates the Shroud could possibly have been the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. >>>

The anomaly of the Shroud

I'm afraid that evidence is far from convincing, If the shroud is a forgery then all the similarites between the image and the story of Christ's crucifiction are contrived not coincidental.

If the shroud is genuine then at best you currently have a first century cloth bearing the likeness of someone who (appears) to have been crucified, nothing more.

"I don't know what conclusion you have drawn, though you seem to indicate you have concluded the Shroud is a fake. Is that true?

My conclusion is that the shroud may indeed be a first century artifact, however there is no direct evidence linking it to any particular historical person.

Until someone is able to prove otherwise, in my eyes the shroud is simply a curiosity.

[hypotenuse]

I'm afraid that evidence is far from convincing, If the shroud is a forgery then all the similarites between the image and the story of Christ's crucifiction are contrived not coincidental.

If the shroud is genuine then at best you currently have a first century cloth bearing the likeness of someone who (appears) to have been crucified, nothing more.

My conclusion is that the shroud may indeed be a first century artifact, however there is no direct evidence linking it to any particular historical person.

Until someone is able to prove otherwise, in my eyes the shroud is simply a curiosity.

It's funny, because I have never said here it was anything more than what you have just stated. Not once have I said it can be proven the Shroud is the burial wrapping of Jesus Christ. I too have simply said it is possible, but at this point in time unprovable, though I don't preclude the possibility of future proof.

I think the following points concerning a forgery should be of interest:

If one accepts that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery, then one must also accept all of the following assertions:

1. A medieval forger first painted the bloodstains with real blood before 'e painted the image.

2. A medieval forger painted the blood flows with genuine blood that 'e had spiked with excessive amounts of bilirubin since A medieval forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.

3. A medieval forger integrated forensic qualities to h' image that would only be known to 20th century science.

4. A medieval forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow from the wrists at 65° from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms.

5. A medieval forger plotted the scourge marks on the body of the man in the Shroud to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.

6. A medieval forger duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century forensic examiners that the man in the Shroud had carried a heavy weight following the scourging.

7. A medieval forger, against all convention of medieval artistry, painted the body 'e was hoaxing as Jesus of Nazareth nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions.

8. A medieval forger, as the forensic genius 'e was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval representations. 'e also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces of Destot.

9. A medieval forger was clever enough to salt the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis.

10. A medieval forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present day, being able to paint an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography or the concept of negative image, and be able to do so without being able to check his work, close up, as 'e progressed.

11. A medieval forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an unknown technique, 30-40 feet away in order to discern the shadowy image as 'e continued.

12. A medieval forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited pony-tail, sidelocks and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century.

13. A medieval forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of the man in the Shroud consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of Jerusalem.

14. the medieval forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, photography and 3-D computer analysis that 'e has foiled all the efforts of modern science. H' unknown and historically unparalleled artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the efforts of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli and many, many others appear as infantile scribblings.

If one accepts the Shroud of Turin is a 14th century forgery and not a genuine artifact of the 1st century, all of these qualities of the purported medieval forger must be accepted, for these statements point either directly or indirectly to hard evidence about the Shroud.

It is also important to consider why the Shroud of Turin is unique in all the world. Why is it the only surviving example of a first century burial shroud? There is no other object in the entire world, to our knowledge, which even approaches the same level of authenticity where tomb coverings are concerned. In other words, the Shroud of Turin is the only extant first century Jewish burial cloth which depicts in detail a man crucified by the Romans.

[Shaftsbury]

It's funny, because I have never said here it was anything more than what you have just stated. Not once have I said it can be proven the Shroud is the burial wrapping of Jesus Christ. I too have simply said it is possible, but at this point in time unprovable, though I don't preclude the possibility of future proof.

Well then basically you agree with my 1st fact, there is no evidence to show that this is the burial shroud of Christ.

At best the evidence you provided suggests that if the shrould is genuine, then it is possible that it belonged to a man crucified in the first century.

You can drag up all the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence you want, in science we need direct evidence.

I think the following points concerning a forgery should be of interest:

If one accepts that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery, then one must also accept all of the following assertions:

1. A medieval forger first painted the bloodstains with real blood before 'e painted the image.

2. A medieval forger painted the blood flows with genuine blood that 'e had spiked with excessive amounts of bilirubin since A medieval forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.

3. A medieval forger integrated forensic qualities to h' image that would only be known to 20th century science.

4. A medieval forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow from the wrists at 65° from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms.

5. A medieval forger plotted the scourge marks on the body of the man in the Shroud to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.

6. A medieval forger duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century forensic examiners that the man in the Shroud had carried a heavy weight following the scourging.

7. A medieval forger, against all convention of medieval artistry, painted the body 'e was hoaxing as Jesus of Nazareth nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions.

8. A medieval forger, as the forensic genius 'e was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval representations. 'e also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces of Destot.

9. A medieval forger was clever enough to salt the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis.

10. A medieval forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present day, being able to paint an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography or the concept of negative image, and be able to do so without being able to check his work, close up, as 'e progressed.

11. A medieval forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an unknown technique, 30-40 feet away in order to discern the shadowy image as 'e continued.

12. A medieval forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited pony-tail, sidelocks and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century.

13. A medieval forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of the man in the Shroud consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of Jerusalem.

14. the medieval forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, photography and 3-D computer analysis that 'e has foiled all the efforts of modern science. H' unknown and historically unparalleled artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the efforts of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli and many, many others appear as infantile scribblings.

LOL you are placing conditions on believing the shroud is a forgery?

The shroud is a forgery if either one of the following conditions exist:

1) The cloth is found to be inconsistent with a 1st century textile.

2) The image on the cloth was manufactured.

The knowledge/skill of the forger is irrelevant as it does nothing to change the above two conditions, it would simply make it harder to prove them.

If one accepts the Shroud of Turin is a 14th century forgery and not a genuine artifact of the 1st century, all of these qualities of the purported medieval forger must be accepted, for these statements point either directly or indirectly to hard evidence about the Shroud.

No not at all, it only takes 1 fact to falsify a hypothesis there is not need to attach a list of conditions; it's either genuine or it's a fake, no need to philosophize.

It is also important to consider why the Shroud of Turin is unique in all the world. Why is it the only surviving example of a first century burial shroud? There is no other object in the entire world, to our knowledge, which even approaches the same level of authenticity where tomb coverings are concerned. In other words, the Shroud of Turin is the only extant first century Jewish burial cloth which depicts in detail a man crucified by the Romans.

Yes indeed, makes you wonder dosen't it?

Edited April 18, 2010 by Shaftsbury

[hypotenuse]

 

...

LOL you are placing conditions on believing the shroud is a forgery?

The shroud is a forgery if either one of the following conditions exist:

1) The cloth is found to be inconsistent with a 1st century textile.

2) The image on the cloth was manufactured.

...

The textile question

The manufactured question. I think we have pretty much established that the Shroud was not manufactured/painted/photgraphed and that it is an authentic burial shroud.

[The Narcisse]

Never, they have everything to lose and nothing to gain from knowing the actual date of the shroud.

It has nothing to do with this and far more to do with the fact that Carbon dating is a VERY destructive process. What would be the point in destroying an ancient artifact? If the cut out a portion of the face and it dates back to the time of Jesus then you have destroyed one the greatest pieces of religious evidence known to the human race. If it dates back to the 1300's then you've destroyed the evidence of a art form that was so advanced it baffled some of the brightest minds in history for 700-800 years.

[Shaftsbury]

The textile question

The manufactured question. I think we have pretty much established that the Shroud was not manufactured/painted/photgraphed and that it is an authentic burial shroud.

If it was established that the image was not manufactured we would not be having this discussion.

You yourself said:

The image formation mechanism is still unknown.

Therefore it is not possible to dermine if the image was manufactured or is natural.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Shaftsbury

[hypotenuse]

If it was established that the image was not manufactured we would not be having this discussion.

You yourself said:

The image formation mechanism is still unknown.

Therefore it is not possible to dermine if the image was manufactured or is natural.

Oh, OK, I get it. Your argument is the image on the Shroud was formed by unknown mechanism, therefore we cannot conclude whether it was caused by artificial/manufactured/by the hand of man means,

OR

it was the product of a naturally occurring process between the shroud cloth and a corpse.

Considering the overwhelming body of scientific evidence -- most of which I have presented in this topic while you have presented nothing -- which attests to a natural formation method, good luck with that argument.

[J.B.]

At the risk of questioning something that was addressed in an article already posted, didn't they say that radiation of the sort a common household scanner uses could produce the properties of the image? The enrgy source would be the question, which if this were really Christ's shroud and the bible idea of resurrection were true, it meant his soul scanned itself back into his body and left.

I am using the History channel show that was previously mentioned for my basis, so if it's bunk, don't hesitate to tear it down, I guess this would fall under the energy source article that was posted earlier, yes?

[hypotenuse]

At the risk of questioning something that was addressed in an article already posted, didn't they say that radiation of the sort a common household scanner uses could produce the properties of the image? The enrgy source would be the question, which if this were really Christ's shroud and the bible idea of resurrection were true, it meant his soul scanned itself back into his body and left.

I am using the History channel show that was previously mentioned for my basis, so if it's bunk, don't hesitate to tear it down, I guess this would fall under the energy source article that was posted earlier, yes?

Several people have theorized regarding such an occurrence, but I believe the scientific community still views those arguments with much skepticism. The most compelling argument against a radiation cause would be that radiation would also have created fundamental changes to the linen fibers of the Shroud. This is evidently not the case. The fibers of the Shroud do not appear to have any of the effects a radiation outburst would have caused. The image on the Shroud is fully contained in the surface coating of starches and saccharides which reside there. These components do not penetrate the fibers. They were most likely deposited on the surface by wicking action as the cloth was drying after a final washing process. 

[J.B.]

Several people have theorized regarding such an occurrence, but I believe the scientific community still views those arguments with much skepticism. The most compelling argument against a radiation cause would be that radiation would also have created fundamental changes to the linen fibers of the Shroud. This is evidently not the case. The fibers of the Shroud do not appear to have any of the effects a radiation outburst would have caused. The image on the Shroud is fully contained in the surface coating of starches and saccharides which reside there. These components do not penetrate the fibers. They were most likely deposited on the surface by wicking action as the cloth was drying after a final washing process. 

Okay. Still a possibility but one that will have to wait til we positively scientifically identify the human soul, then. As, if the soul existed, it could be a low level odd radiation source that did these effects. But, that's not scientific yet, so it's the last I'll say on the matter.

Thanks for answering my question.